Judgment:
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. Since identical questions of law and facts are involved in all these matters, we proceed to decide them by a common order.
2. Admittedly in the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short 'Act') on the ground of adultery, by the husband Divya Kumar against his wife Girija, the person with whom the wife was alleged to have the illicit relationship was not impleaded as co-respondent.
3. Along with the said petition of husband, two other petitions filed by the wife Girija under Section 9 of the Act and under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, were tied and as many as 8 issues were framed, out of which issue No. 2 was as under:
Whether respondent (wife) had illicit relations with Anoop Jindal and she was living adulterous life.
4. We have heard the submissions advanced before us by learned Counsel for the parties.
5. In not impleading Anoop Jindal as co-respondent, the husband Divya Kumar flouted the provisions contained in Rule 801-G of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 1952. Rule 801-G reads as under:
801-G Necessary parties (a) in every petition for divorce or judicial separation on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery or has committed adultery with any person the petitioner shall make such person a co-respondent. The petitioner may however, apply to the Court by an application supported by an affidavit for leave to dispense with the joinder of such person as a co-respondent on any of the following grounds:
(i) that the name of such person is unknown to the petitioner although he has made due efforts for discovery;
(ii) that such person is dead;
(iii) that the respondent being the wife is leading a life of a prostitute and that the petitioner knows of no person with whom adultery has been committed;
(iv) for any other sufficient reason the Court may deem fit to consider.
(b) In every petition under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act the petitioner shall make 'the other wife' mentioned in that section a corespondent.
(c) In every petition under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that the condition in Section 5(1) is contravened, the petitioner shall make the spouse alleged to be living at the time of the marriage a correspondent.
6. Learned Family Court, in our opinion, committed illegality in ignoring Rule 801-G and all these matters, therefore, require fresh consideration.
7. For these reasons, we dispose of the instant appeals in the following terms:
(i) The impugned judgment and decree dt. May 10, 2004 is set aside.
(ii) Husband Divya Kumar is directed to implead Anoop Jindal as corespondent in Civil Misc. Petition No. 132/2001.
(iii) The parties are directed to appear before Family Court Kota on May 30, 2007.
(iv) Record of the case be sent forthwith.